memory_write

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the write is atomic (temp file then rename), rejects writes to certain directories and non-text extensions, and creates parent directories as needed. This goes beyond a simple 'write' statement, though it omits whether overwriting occurs or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (3 sentences) with front-loaded purpose and no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, path semantics, atomicity, restrictions, and directory creation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists (context confirms), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers key aspects: path behavior, atomicity, restrictions, and directory creation. However, it could mention overwrite behavior or error cases for completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'path' (relative to palace root, restricted directories, non-text extensions) but for 'content' only mentions 'content' without format details. The description partially fills the gap but not fully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Write content to a file within the palace.' with specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like memory_batch (batch writes) and memory_read (read). The additional details about path, atomicity, and restrictions reinforce the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While the description provides important usage constraints (path relative to palace root, atomic write, rejected paths/extensions, creates parent dirs), it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_batch for batch operations. The context is implicit rather than directly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.